[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 12 KB, 300x168, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10886209 No.10886209 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>> No.10886214

ask /pol/

>> No.10886229

or... maybe try asking "how do you upscale an insect hive mind in size infinity?"

They function much the same way and as such they share the same problems when scaled up.

>> No.10886254

Use polling. Well designed polls can genealize extremely accurately to the population using samples of only a few thousand.

>> No.10886604

what do you think the US Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are? It's a scaleable form of government, especially the early system without direct election of senators and where the runner up would become the vice president.

>> No.10886619

Why? What do you expect to be maximized as a result of this?

>> No.10886621

Use AWS lambda functions and DynamoDB.

>> No.10886723


Imagine having the efficiency of China with the (relative) freedom of a liberal democracy.

Why not improve the systems we have to be better? It's quite apparent that the government systems right now are imperfect everywhere, with inefficiencies and corruption at one point or another, and there is nothing to state that things cannot be improved.

>> No.10886758

>there is nothing to state that
See: >>10886723
>quite apparent that the government systems right now are imperfect everywhere, with inefficiencies and corruption at one point or another

>> No.10886779

Give one example of a perfectly efficient government that exists right now? Beyond that, consider it's geopolitical position relative to world powers and the ability to secure itself from invasion.

>> No.10886802

I'm not even sure this conversation is worth having because you didn't seem to pass the mirror test.

There are plenty of reasons to believe that things cannot be meaningfully improved. You cited some yourself. I'm asking you: >>10886619

You didn't answer the question. Now you're asking me to prove that your ideal could be correct. I don't consider it correct. Defend your own position or else just do the simple thing and answer my question directly.

>> No.10886814

Big Data and abolish privacy.

>> No.10886817

Abolish voting. Promote spyware to feed data to AI.

>> No.10886831

If you consider corruption, it's pretty apparent that in comparing nations like Somalia and the US that things can be vastly improved. Sure, local factors could account, but ignoring governmental systems would be preposterous as they literally define how the country should be run.

I use the word scaling because an dictatorship for example may be more efficient in a group of 3, but once we scale upwards to a million it becomes much more difficult to maintain power.

I am simply asking for a example for you to defend your own positions as you are implying that governments cannot be improved? I would assume there would be alot who would disagree with that.

>> No.10886835

>there would be alot who would disagree with that
My generalized solution to the government problem is to let everyone die. They can do this. It was never possible to prevent death indefinitely, so it's a fundamentally realistic approach. Moreover, it works, because people won't just die because they're told that they're allowed to. They'll do something else, and I won't have to take responsibility for their actions, because "taking responsibility" doesn't cause them to survive.

This system cannot become corrupt.

>> No.10886848

And how are you going to ensure that someone better armed than you isn't going to enslave you?

>> No.10886851

Letting someone arm themselves wouldn't be letting them die. It's actually really fucking hard to let everyone die, but I believe I can rise to the challenge.

>> No.10886856

Yes but how are you going to ensure someone better armed than you isn't going to enslave you?

>> No.10886857

There isn't anyone better armed than me.

>> No.10886862


Yes, yes, yes, I do see that there is a real dilemma here. In that, while it has been government policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Ministers and administration as a responsibility of Officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy.

>> No.10886879

Sure thing buddy! Now try dealing with an army of slavers.

>> No.10886898

I'm letting them die same as everyone else. I don't see the problem.

Listen, I don't think you understand how realistic my system of governance is.

>> No.10886903

>The efficiency of China
Surely you can't be serious? What is so efficient about China? Creating ghost cities that are at best 10% occupied? Creating a gender imbalance and a demographic crisis on demand? Mass producing goods with terrible safety standards that result in final destination tier deaths? Their shitty army and fleet which can't project their power outside of east Asia?

>> No.10886945

Yeah that was a bit generalist of my part, but perhaps a better way to frame it would be the general commitment to long term projects in infrastructure and railways, which are undeniably better in some aspects to the US for example.

Obviously China has alot of problems, but that is kinda the point in that these problems may be the result of government problems that result from scaling, and solutions may offer new systems that have far less drawbacks than current ones.

>> No.10886956

Are you intentionally creating strawman (bait) arguments to lure people into talking about this in a way you hope to be constructive, because you lack the intellect to discuss it using your actual philosophy?

>> No.10886970

Well I mean if you want to live a miserable existence as coal miner or slave you can go ahead, not like anyone would be willing to protect someone who wants nothing to do with society.

Your system isn't "realistic" because it would fail at the moment of inception; Nobody would follow it and build their own society instead, because it's quite clear that you want nothing to do with society. You "can let people die", but chances are they will be alot more comfortable in their deathbed than in a dark coal mine.

>> No.10886976

No, China was an actual oversight. Like dude, if you don't wanna discuss, you can just not.. discuss.

>> No.10886981

Then I have good news for you, since your main concern seems to be how to keep both the central planning of China with the freedoms of America, and the obvious answer is that you can't. When China wants something done they do it, regardless if how many Chinese people die as a result. They have central planning because they are willing to kill as many people as it takes to keep control of the country, it's not senseless killing but it is killing political dissidents. In America people get to do mostly what they want to do, and that usually doesn't involve giving your time to some government project that may have zero benefit to you or your family. You can't have both central planning and the freedom to live your life as you want.

>> No.10886983


The civic franchise would be limited to only those that have shown capacity for responsible actions beyond themselves. Not just through military service. Any service that can sufficiently stress the person.

>> No.10887154

Have ethnostates
This barely /sci/ and any technocrat answers are always humantrartiam horror shows that cause worse backlash in the long long run.

>> No.10887890

Death, failure, are realistic. The point is that my system of government CAN'T be corrupted. When you have a brutal dictator, they're not censoring and killing citizens because they want to be corrupt; they're doing it because they're they're trying to be responsible on behalf of millions. So if I want to avoid becoming a genocidal autocrat, my solution is to simply be entirely irresponsible.

You intuit up "wants nothing to do with society" as an inherently bad thing, but it's not. Even everyone left me alone and I could go live in the woods and play our the stereotypical hermit life, then that would be perfectly fine. People leaving me along is by no means a bad thing. What you don't get is that there dangerous monarchs and other tyrants WANTED SOMETHING TO DO IN SOCIETY.

So, again, I ask, directly: >>10886619
>What do you expect to be maximized as a result of this?

What ACTUAL purpose do you suppose government to serve, and WHAT do you expect will end up maximized as a result of scaled government?

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.